Fixed.


Although I understand what you are saying, I could raise the counterpoint that density through intensification would still have lower maintenance costs especially when it comes to services. In addition, if the infrastructure replacement/upgrades were completed according to a master plan instead of in an ad hoc fashion it would still be cheaper than providing the same sort of infrastructure in a greenfield setting.

Also, I think your point helps the argument for more density in suburban developments.

Low income families pay rent, and property taxes are included in that rent. This is the same ridiculous argument that renters should have as much a say in City government, as they don't pay property taxes.

Your entire point about those who can pay more usually do does not apply in this case, because those who cannot pay more are the ones that are.

And property values do not have a strong correlation to income. Seniors being the biggest counter example.

Seniors in this city are such a small fraction of the population that if anything, they're the exception that proves the rule. Plus, seniors tend to downsize as they age so I'm not entirely sure where all these low income seniors living in McMansions are.

Obviously there are exceptions, which is why I said *correlation* - not *1:1 relationship*. You can't seriously be arguing that property values and income levels aren't pretty heavily related in the majority of cases.

Anyway, semantics and specifics aside, all I was responding to was the comment of "X is unfair because I pay more, but get less". Yes, that's how much of our system works in this country (when looked at shallowly). I haven't seen a convincing argument as to why that should be applied to infrastructure planning as opposed to all the other realms where we accept it as a given. In and of itself, it's not really an argument to change taxation methods, unless you run in the WRA party. There are plenty of other, better arguments here.

Can you provide some census data to back this up? You have made some claims that have been thoroughly debunked recently (percentage of multi-family units in this city for instance) so it really makes you hard to believe when you say something like this. Depending on how you classify senior I bet they would represent a majority of people in this city (if you classify it as 55 and older for instance).

It's the inner-city land these seniors live on that's valuable, not the houses. The houses are the same little modest houses they've lived in for decades.

You obviously haven't been to neighbourhoods like Lower Mount Royal, Sunnyside, Sunalta, Bankview and Altadore if you haven't noticed seniors getting squeezed out.

That only works occasionally, large patches of land suitable for redevelopment in cities where there is a market for the redevelopment that will actually result in tangible economies of scale of the sort we speak of. It makes me physically ill to think about it - but this would apply when the Edmonton airport is redeveloped. When you are dealing with redevelopment on a lot-by-lot basis over a decade or more it is a really jagged pill.

Services is complicated because the greatest cost isn't associated with the physical plant but human salaries. And there are only so many savings to be realized - you can't have a class of 60 students. You can't have thirty police serving 100,000 people.

And suburban density has been rising for the last thirty years, multifamily developments have been built in suburban areas for decades. There isn't really a conflict there or even anything that has to change.

No, I made a comment that I freely admitted came out of my ass. But thanks for pretending this is a journal-cited research forum instead of a chat board. :rolleyes:

No idea if this is from actual census data or just estimates. Yes, if we classify senior as 30, the majority of people here are seniors. However, I'd be inclined to go with the usual definition of 65. While it would seem nice to think we're all going to retire and stop earning income at 55, it just ain't a reality for most people.

From those numbers, 65 and older is about 10% of the city. 55 and older would be 20%. Now, good luck finding numbers on how many people 55-65 work in this city proportionally (who tracks this sort of thing?). Either way, seniors are a small minority here, unless you go with 55 (which makes half of my cow-orkers suddenly "low income").

Anyway, instead of pedantically picking apart a single comment, I'd really like one of you to make a convincing argument that Calgary's demographics somehow completely go against the trend on this continent that more income generally means higher property values, all things being equal. Is Dover full of millionaires that I'm not aware of? Is Mount Royal full of single moms and university students working part time? Again - seriously, someone is going to try to make that argument?

With a few exceptions I've seen demographics generated on this city that show almost a straight-line correspondence between average income in a neighbourhood and property values. No, I do not have official peer-reviewed data from the census bureau on this, but I'm astounded that this is not common sense. People with more money tend to spend more money, and vice-versa. This is not rocket science.

Fun Wikipedia article. Presuming the numbers have been accurately transcribed from their original sources, and presuming that between 2000 and today these sort of figures haven't radically changed - look at the table near the bottom, and sort by average income. Now look at the far-right column (% renting). Once again, yes there are exceptions - but there's a pretty strong inverse correlation between renting and income. I'm too lazy to graph it but it would be pretty close to a straight line once you exclude the few outliers. Now, unless rental properties on average are worth more than owned properties in this city (which would make little sense if most rental are multi-family and land is in fact the more expensive part of property values)...

Those are the majority of people in Calgary? And how can I "obviously not have been there"? Seeing a handful of examples in no way changes the reality when generalizing over a city of a million people.

How many times does the word "exception" have to be used? I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT EVERY SINGLE SENIOR CITIZEN LIVES IN A CHEAP HOUSE. Yeesh. Of COURSE some seniors are living in very expensive places compared to their income, and of course some get forced out due to cost increases. Which, of course, leads to them downsizing (hint: downsizing isn't just about physical space reduction).

Regardless, out of a city of a million+ people, how many of them are currently low income seniors living in Mount Royal and these other areas? Unless it's in the hundreds of thousands, it's not enough to change a general trend, or to use other words, a correlation.

Lower Mount Royal, incidentally, is close to 90% apartment/condos (according to something I dug up on the City's website) - these are not exactly seniors being squeezed out of their ancestral mansions here. While again there are exceptions, most apartments and condos will have lower property values *per unit* than the equivalent SFH, in any given area. Because, as you point out, the land is what's valuable - and SFH has more land per unit than anything (again, with very few exceptions - otherwise what's the point of this entire discussion on paying your fair share of taxes...).

When did Mount Royal become the mean?
I think we can all agree that there's few if any seniors in Mount Royal having to subside on Alpo because they can't afford their property taxes.

However, there are plenty of seniors and others, living in numerous areas where property values have increased drastically.


A smarter way of doing property taxes would be taking in consideration when a property was purchased and what it is worth now. So if Grandma bought her place for $5000k back in the day she gets a bit of a break.

This wouldn't apply to just bed shitters though. Plenty of folks have bought in areas such as Bridgeland, Inglewood and Ramsay in the 7+ years ago, before the boom and before innercity was desirable, who have some their property increase in value significantly.

Yeah, this seems like a great idea in theory until you end up like California. From what I understand, they're not allowed to increase property taxes for existing residents, something akin to rent control in NYC. Obviously there's *some* increase but it's very minor. And half of California is currently running massive deficits as a result. I won't claim to understand the whole story here, but it's been tried and has all sorts of unintended consequences - again like rent control in Manhattan.

Freeweed, the point I was making wasn't that somehow lower income people are living in higher valued property than average or higher income households. What I was saying, and something supported by census after census, is that low income families spend a higher percentage of their income on housing than average income households. When you go from low income to high income the rate on income increase is greater than the rate of increase of percentage of income spent on housing. Very low income groups spend upwards of 40% of their income on housing. That is why property taxes are regressive, they are taxing a good that lower income households spend more money on. A progressive tax, like our income tax, would assign a higher percentage of tax rate to a higher level of income, not the reverse.

Of course, single family homes do not have to heat common areas such as hallways and the like. My home - 1200sf on the main level + equal sized basement runs about $50/month for heating (gas and distribution).

Any residence within 5 minutes of chinook centre.

Not quite- no grocery stores, no liquor stores, no ski shops (that sell actual boards). Those, to me, are necessities.

I think we can agree to split the difference and say that property taxes are "less progressive" than income taxes (which incidentally, aren't quite as progressive as the party line states - low income earners still end up with less disposable income as a result). Anyway, low income earners spend a higher proportion of income on every necessity, not just housing. It's just the life of being low income.

The biggest problem I have with replacing things like property and sales taxes with income taxes (both of which are proposed on a regular basis) is that it becomes trivial for a person to amass great wealth, and then never pay into the system that supports that wealth. I can't think of a single more regressive taxation structure than one that allows the ultra-wealthy to never pay a cent in taxes. Law of unintended consequences and all that.

I'm saying this very tongue in cheek, but with a tiny sliver of seriousness - do you walk to the ski hill? :P

Not sure how what we're talking about relates to California or NYC rent control. Just because variations of said pland didn't work,can't we learn from other's mistakes and evolve and adapt such a plan? Besides, I doubt this is why California currently has a massive deficit.

No need to apologize for not having a understanding the whole story. You've proven that over and over here with the majority of your posts.

Edit>
For future reference, can you please let us know which posts are factual and which ones have been pulled from your ass. As they all smell the same from here.

Hey, at least I can admit it, unlike most people here who can't ever see past their own personal worldview of everything and think that that is how the world actually works. :P

Or who can't see parallels or analogies, ever.

But hey, feel free to pick apart any and all posts. Just remember that contrary to what you and most of the Internet believe, a different opinion than your own != incorrect. Sometimes we can learn from others.

I teleport.